That income has been taxed already. Bequeathment is not a fucking INCOME issue.
Of course it is; "income" doesn't get taxed, TRANSFERS get taxed. For income tax, it's the transfer from your employer to you. For inheritance tax, it's the transfer from the estate to you.
Yes. Cross-subsidization (also known as "socialism") has resulted in most people I have spoken to paying 40% to 60% more on their premiums, with a higher deductible.
That's not what socialism is, that's insurance.
It has also resulted in fewer young people with insurance, because their premiums went way up. It's DUMB to raise rates on the demographic that (A) is essential to funding the program, and (B) needs it the least.
Are you entirely forgetting about the mandate? Where do you get that fewer young people have insurance? That, like the other anecdotes about huge cost increases, sounds entirely made up.
A few hundred? Try $800/month which is the cheapest plan the ACA offers where I live. And that plan was total garbage, didn't cover half of what you'd expect and had huge co-pays.
I've heard this so many times, and seen it debunked so many times, that it's just ridiculous. Sorry, but unsupported anecdotal data isn't really convincing, especially since so many people have been wrong about it.
The problem with ACA is that it MANDATED HMO's... Not health insurance.
I don't know what odd definition of "HMO" you're using (I suspect you're using it simply because HMOs are unpopular), but that's just not true.
If I tried to get the plan I have with my employer through the ACA exchange it would be over $1600/month. That's insane! And yes, I actually looked it up.
Again with the anecdotes. Also, I notice you didn't say anything about which plan it was, or how much your employer was paying.
Yeah...ask the Soviets or Cuba how that worked. (Or Venezuela if you need a more recent example.) Hell,. just ask Europe how that's going. (Looking at you, France.)
The Soviets and Cuba do/did not use European socialist capitalism. Europe is currently suffering from a terrible policy of having a currency union without a fiscal union, which is the proximate cause of their problems.
Nature does not pollute itself.
WTF? I mean seriously WTF?
Have you ever seen a volcano? Nature - polluting.
Check out the Great Oxygenation Event for even a better example; cyanobacteria produced so much pollution (in the form of free oxygen) that they killed off most other life on the planet.
Let's say X is a constant, and is always equal to 5. It is not logically (or physically) possible to say "From now on, Y will be equal to X. But we're going to change the value of Y as we see fit.
I think there's an error, in that you're not using a consistent definition of "value". You can offer an official EXCHANGE RATE of, say, dollars to Argentine Pesos (and that's not really a random example), and then inflate a currency. In the long term, this doesn't really WORK, since everyone who can will just buy dollars with pesos and bankrupt your exchange office because there's no equivalent trade back to pesos, but it's not tautological.
Tesla should have concentrated on producing a credible hatchback, Volkswagen Golf competitor they could sell worldwide. If they could get a section of that market then things would change very rapidly.
Just like Nissan has with the Leaf? Or Mitsubishi with the i-Miev? Or Honda with the Fit Electric? Chevy Spark? Focus Electric?
There's a whole lot of competition in that market; I don't think it'd be unfair to credit Tesla's relative success with the fact that they DIDN'T try to do that.
HEALTHY markets are zero or negative inflation. Take computer-related equipment: every year, you get more bang for the buck (even when you consider they're inflated bucks). That's called deflation.
No, no, no. You cannot parcel up "deflation" and "inflation" on a per-market basis, then use that to determine the strength or weakness of a currency.
A deflationary currency is a bad thing; you simply have to remember that an economy thrives on people buying things from each other, and breaks down when they stop doing so. It's a bit more complicated, obviously, but primarily you need to be concerned when people have an incentive not to do so.
Deflation causes a breakdown in this in that it becomes acceptable to get "returns" (i.e. increase in worth) for a currency by simple stuffing it in a mattress. This is very harmful, not least because it's a positive feedback loop; the more people stuffing currency in their mattresses, the smaller the money supply, and the faster the currency deflates. See the Great Depression for an example.
For nearly 300 years, inflation was essentially zero in North America, and we had a healthy economy (arguably the healthiest in the world).
If by "essentially zero" you mean "inflation and deflation of double-digits year over year", I suppose that's half-true. It doesn't make for a stable economy, though. And just for kicks, you should look for all of the "Panics" that happened in 19th century America, you might be surprised at the number and their severity.
We need to end the Fed, and re-instate a hard money standard. Just those two things would fix many of our ills.
This is very, very much not the case. Why do you think the "Great Moderation" happened? Why do you think that not a single nation in the world is using a "hard money" standard anymore?
It's far past time we kicked these adherents of failed and discredited Keynesian theory out of government economics. Sadly, Janet Yellen, new Fed chief, is a staunch Keynesian and a fan of the "new" Phillips Curve, which was demonstrated pretty thoroughly to be wrong about 20 years ago.
Wait, what? The "new" Phillips curve has only been around since 1995, so I'm not sure how it could have been demonstrated to be wrong before then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
We already have stagflation under Obama: high inflation (government inflation figures are just plain B.S.) and high unemployment.
What on earth makes you think we have high inflation?
I think Robin Hanson's commentary on the movie's lack of internal consistency is valid.
Hmm, I'm reminded of the Frederik Pohl quote: "A good science fiction story should be able to predict not the automobile but the traffic jam."
Fair enough, but keep in mind that this is comparing with 1960s turbine technology; we have far better turbines available today.
Also, the turbine can spin at its optimal speed since it wouldn't be physically connected to anything, meaning optimal efficiency, no lag, and basically everything that was a problem about the Chrysler is made moot.
If I swipe my debit card today, the payment processor doesn't transmit actual dollar bills and coins on the spot. Over simplifying, the transaction is logged and my bank will guarantee to pay the seller at some point in the future.
For many transactions, I expect that Bitcoin will be used the same way.
This implies that Bitcoin will lose the only legitimate claim it has to being better than existing currencies.
"Is that the problem?
I thought it was volatility. No, wait... it was a pyramid scheme. Or rather, because the US won't accept it for taxes. Or was it because it's deflationary? Heck, I just don't know any more."
Are you implying that Bitcoin can only have one problem?
Note that "gold" also has a finite amount available that gets progressively harder/more expensive to mine.
Both Bitcoin and gold are poor choices as currency for precisely this reason.
he is human and he needs to be loved, just like everybody else does.
But apparently, he goes about things the wrong way.
Happiness is twin floppies.
